cybernationsfandomcom-20200215-history
Talk:Great War IV, The Unjust War
Posting and Edit Rules Everyone needs to remember to sign up for a profile or remember to post the 4 "~" at the end of their messages in order for everyone to keep track of who is doing what. If not you're comments are going to listed as Anonymous and won't do anything to change what goes on or off. For all the new folks, if you can't include a link to a citation, it is best that you DO NOT try to edit it in, because un-sourced material, comments, info, whatever, is going to be flagged and removed. I know that's tough because the boards are down, but this stuff doesn't have to be real-time. Try to focus on the WHO, WHAT, and WHEN right now because the WHY, is going to have to be sorted out very carefully. JTBeowulf 13:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Great War 4 Title :::I cut&pasted all the discussion about the name of war into this heading. Please try to keep it here in the future - CirrusOfMalla 14:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC) PLEASE DO NOT CALL IT GREAT WAR 4 AS IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THESE EVENTS. Call it Initiative civil war if you like to, New Great War, But it isn't and shouldn't be named Great War 4 - Altnabla :Like it or not, the war already has 5 of the Sanctioned alliances involved, with fairly strong odds that at least 2 more will be joining soon. Add in whatever bandwagoners hop in, and this more or less IS the next Great War. Which is immaterial regardless, because CN consensus has already started calling this GWIV. - Anonymous :I think his point is that the great wars were unreleated to this current one. The great wars were Orders/Initiative vs. CoaLUEtion/League/Aegis slapfights, while this is UJP vs. whatever the ex-WUT bloc is calling themselves. -Anonymous ::This IS Great War IV. There are already other alliances joining in, and at least 7 of the top 10 alliances are involved. More will come shortly. -Anonymous#3 ::: Call it Grand War, Unjust War if you wish but not Great War IV. The point is, the IV is completely irrelevant as it has NOTHING to do with GWI, GWII and GWIII. You seems to confuse the name with "World War" name that is used for a global conflict. It is a Major Conflict but it has NOTHING to do with the Great Wars. Plus the name is lame. -- Altnabla :woot.. all we need is the GPA and we are set for the greatest great war ever. its going to be a snowball effect more and more are coming each day. the number of nations vs the strength is going to overtake in the long haul. wich its going to be. so grab some popcorn and you 7.62 rifle and watch the fireworks fly..-anonymous#999 Added a title to keep this organized. JTBeowulf 13:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Organising it as well, merging what I did with Beowulf stuff --Altnabla 14:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC) I'm sorry, but this is too big not to be a great war. The southern treaty web is tearing itself apart, and the web itself is enormous. I think over half the sanctioned alliances are now involved. You said, basically, that all the other Great Wars involved one big bloc against another. That is exactly what's going on right now. I don't know of another conflict as big as this one that hasn't been called a Great War. --Anonymous It shouldn't been called the Great war for it has nothing to do with the Great war timeline. GW 1,2 and 3 were linked in some sort. This is a war between Winners and Neutrals of the GWIII. I don't any LUE, NAAC or Legion yet, it is even anticipated that Fark MAY join with UJP so this is not a great war, as far as definition goes. I think both sides agree with that. --Altnabla, IRON While the title of "Great War IV" is expected, I agree with the proposition that the title of the conflict should be different. The Unjust War would likely work, as I can see both sides in the conflict spinning the title to their particular line easily. : I like "Unjust War", personally. - 63.167.196.17 13:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC) ::^That was me. Forgot to log in. - CirrusOfMalla 14:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC) : "Unjust War" Might work, I don't particularly disagree with it even if it's a bit one-sided but it is vague enough not be certain of whether Unjust wins or is decimated so it works for me/ Altnabla Every war has new participants so determining names on that basis seems to me, a little flimsy. The continuity shared between the other GW's of I, II, and III, is that they involved major sanctioned alliances on either side, and that the involvement 'great world powers,' (sanctioned alliances) are involved is justification enough for 'Great War' title. I'm all for having a "Naming Section" just like we've had previously, but as far as I'm concerned, we really need to wait for the forums to be back up to make any real judgments on what folks (inside and outside of the fight) are calling it. JTBeowulf 16:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC) : Agreed. There should be a forum thread discussing the name. However, I will disagree with your point that every war has different participants. The previous 3 Great Wars were all essentially a single conflict: CoaLUEtion vs WUT. This is most definitely a new and different one. This war is "great" in the descriptive sense, but nonetheless it needs a unique name. - CirrusOfMalla 17:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC) :: I see your point and that is completely understandable, however, at this point UJP represents 4 out of 7 of the WUT, so technically the majority of WUT is at war now though they may not be fighting under the Initiative banner. Though I do think this may need to be given its own name given the uniqueness of how confusing it has all become. I don't see the need to press the issue now, but I do appreciate you bringing that point up, Cirrus. JTBeowulf 18:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC) This should not be named the fourth great war. There is a naming thread going on in the in game forums right now. Take the discussion there and build the wiki at that page. I like "Epic War" personally, it's generic and does not refer to either side. -BamaBuc 68.17.148.247 23:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Personally, I dislike Unjust war cause its POV and we should try to be neutral in articles. --74.105.123.91 01:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Anonymous does not approve! A World War/Great War by definition is when the top powers from every corner take sides and war againts one another. by the logic *it dosent involve the players of the last great wars* is idiotic. If a major conflict were to start in the Middle East but not in Europe then you wouldnt call that the Third Great War? because Germany isint involved we have to call it something else? please.. : The mistake really was calling GW1 GW1. It should have been called The CoaLUEtion War, or something like that. Then we'd never be in this mess. Unforch, folks back then didn't realize we would have global wars every few months. Going to go ahead and rename it Unjust War seems to have a plurality of support among people offering serious opinions in the forum thread on the topic, so I’m going to go ahead and rename the article, leaving a redirect from Fourth Great War. If another name picks up more momentum we can always rename it again, but any name will have a better chance of sticking if it’s used universally. -CirrusOfMalla 01:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Hypothetically according to your logic if a major war were to break out in the real world, but over the middle east and not Europe you wouldn't call that WWIII??? A world war by definition is when most or all the great powers side against each other on all sides of the globe this is the current situation change it back to the Great War IV : What is this real world you're talking about? Plus there's a gloal conflict section that opened :) --Altnabla 06:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC) :: It is absolutely not a foregone conclusion that your hypothetical war would be called World War III. In fact I think it extremely unlikely. They were called the World Wars because they were a different scale war than any in history (and the 2nd one was really just a continuation of the 1st). If it happened again they would no longer hold that distinction. In fact, I suspect that if it happened again the historians of the future would probably rename what we call the World Wars something new. It happens all the time. Look up King Philip's War, for one such example. :: Ultimately academic arguments don't matter. The war will be called whatever the majority of people call it, and the wiki will be edited accordingly after the war is over. :: Its involved nations that make it a global world war, but even with the scale of the war the current one makes GW I II III look like cake. Just becuase "germany isint involved" dosent mean that this isint a great war. This IS the 4th Great War Best name ever: Cyber Nations versus The Internet "Best name ever: Cyber Nations versus The Internet" idiots like above are an example why this war isint being called the 4th great war. people don't know a definition of a great war :Definition =/= name. This is the 4th global war (note lack of capitalization), but your argument fails at producing any reason why it should be named the Fourth Great War (note capitalization). Meanwhile, multiple arguments have been produced illustrating that Unjust War is a more clear name. :Also, making academic arguments personal and calling people you disagree with idiots fails miserably. Learn to do it right or don't do it at all. Proposed Name Change The Great Patriotic Clusterfuck :See the massive discussion about the name of the war already dominating the talk page. And see the many threads in the forum discussing the topic as well. If you want, add it to the bottom of the list of "alternate names", but otherwise: NO. - CirrusOfMalla 18:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Principal Commanders It would be great if someone who actually knew who is running things would update the Principal Commanders part of the infobox. The four people I listed were really just guesses. - CirrusOfMalla 18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC) :Virillus was just appointed Field Marshal of \m/. While the Triumvirate is running a lot most of the tactical decisions are in his realm. Chief Savage Man 21:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Im againts the idea of having a commanders list... now everyone of all the alliances will want they're name up there... just have the major players or none at allEmperor Rick 21:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC) : Agreed. The commanders list should be reserved for the 2 or 3 most important "supreme allied marshalls" of each side. There is no reason to list the leader of every participating sizable alliance. But I can't do anything about it, because as a neutral I don't know who the supreme commanders are. This is the one subject where it is better if a participant rather than a neutral writes the article. -CirrusOfMalla 14:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Combatant Statistics Quote: All stats are from when alliance issued their DoW. By the time other declared, some had already won or lost NS. Also since you need time to do it after update, all stats are after an update blitz rush. Some Alliances might have been forgotten, I'm sorry about that, please post under the stats if you see that I missed one. Justice League IRON : 10,836,604 ns - 1,628 nukes NpO : 6,197,548 ns - 631 nukes ODN : 5,688,797 ns - 452 nukes MCXA : 5,066,425 ns - 360 nukes GGA : 4,970,213 ns - 292 nukes Legion : 4,420,190 ns - 243 nukes MHA : 2,656,203 ns - 60 nukes NoV : 2,480,259 ns - 315 nukes NATO : 2,338,465 ns - 60 nukes Atlantis : 2,276,574 ns - 84 nukes CON : 2,053,092 ns - 63 nukes GDA : 1,909,130 ns - 61 nukes TSH : 1,535,745 ns - 118 nukes Illuminati : 1,505,713 ns - 36 nukes CIS : 1,464,355 ns - 118 nukes STA: 1,460,546 ns - 86 nukes UPN : 1,275,669 ns - 19 nukes ONOS : 1,210,467 ns - 46 nukes SOUL: 1,141,656 ns - 46 nukes The Brigade: 977,892 ns - 78 nukes NTO : 950,181 ns - 16 nukes TAB : 873,530 ns - 43 nukes -AiD- : 823,651 ns - 45 nukes OcUK : 782,466 ns - 43 nukes NOI : 533,427 ns - 11 nukes PoC : 136,182 ns - 0 nukes CSE : 107,435 ns - 0 nukes 65,672,417 ns - 4,954 nukes Quote: The Unjust Highway GOONS : 13,506,930 ns - 2,157 nukes \m/ : 6,724,909 ns - 632 nukes TPF : 3,206,848 ns - 151 nukes Genmay : 3,043,981 ns - 165 nukes MK : 2,065,452 ns - 323 nukes ASC : 2,012,395 ns - 170 nukes RIA : 1,896,138 ns - 51 nukes FARK : 1,705,585 ns - 12 nukes FOK : 1,595,366 ns - 51 nukes GOD : 1,408,022 ns - 91 nukes TOOL : 1,359,795 ns - 44 nukes R&R : 1,079,667 ns - 27 nukes EoTRS : 992,163 ns - 13 nukes Golden Sabres : 932,248 ns - 157 nukes BAPS : 851,366 ns - 58 nukes OFS : 488,439 ns - 18 nukes SPAM : 408,969 ns - 69 nukes 42,188,606 ns - 4,189 Nukes Up to date for Alliances that have issued a DoW --Altnabla 06:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC) added Nuke counts --Altnabla 08:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Added new alliances that joined, Changed the blocs names. Enjoy --Altnabla 13:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Current Declarations of War IRON: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=1053 NPO: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=1058 GOONS: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=1068 GGA: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=1051 Golden Sabers: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=1063 NpO: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=1052 I added a title, cause for a second I had know idea what this stuff was. JTBeowulf 13:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Stop with the flamebait over our alliance title UJP, as well as changing \m/ Ns. I will refrain myself from doing so as well. Dleeted Boondock as he was appearing twice --Altnabla 14:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC) I edited out the posted versions per the boards coming back online. You can go check them out yourself, but I pulled in as many as I found before I'm heading to lunch. Now that the boards are up, I hope some folks start citing before editing the page, cause that makes everything go a lot smoother. JTBeowulf 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Wrong Numbers I love how \m/ has 30 million NS in those numbers up there. At the time of my check, they had 6,831,284 NS. Changes the look of things. Might want to fix that. Abstract Bias The Abstract seems to present bias against current members of the WUT. 7 members are still present, and calling this war an effective disunion is far fetched as the only alliance to leave WUT is the NPO at this point in time. I do not think this article has the authority to jump to the conclusion that the Initiative is effectively ended, and it should be edited. JTBeowulf 16:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC) : The Abstract was biased the other way round when I edited it, I asked someone from the GPA to write one for me. If anyone has a less biased description for it, go ahead but "Former allies in the World Unity Treaty devolve to war, pitting GOONS and its closest allies against New Polar Order and its closest allies. " Really was biased. --Altnabla 02:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC) In actuality, it would seem to me that since GOONs, GenMay, \m/, and TPF constitute a majority of WUT signatories, MDC, MCXA and TOP, will be obliged to join in per the WUT. UJP and WUT are synonymous at this point, and unless the non-UJP members of WUT leave, then it should be "WUT vs Blue et al." JTBeowulf 17:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC) After reading the UJP and WUT charters side by side, there is an interesting legal problem. In the UJP Charter, Section B; Article i states: No signatory alliance, leader or member will divulge any classified information to those who do not follow the unjust path or those without the proper security clearance. The leaking of information, for whatever reason, will result in immediate expulsion from the unjust path and an automatic declaration of war. While in WUT, Section III states: If a signatory alliance possesses information relevant to the well being of any other signatory the presentation of that material to the other signatories is required. So theoretically, "B-i" of UJP violates the mandate of "WUT-III," and therefore GOONs, GenMay, \m/, and TPF all stand in violation of the WUT even though they hold a majority 4/7 or approximately 57% of vote. If the illegal members remain the majority, WUT rules have become void, but it would have begun with the signing of UJP, not with this war. JTBeowulf 17:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC) : I don't know about TOP and MDC, but MCXA will almost certainly be supporting BLEU. However, in any event Pacifica leaving WUT is enough to call it a major schism IMO. Pacifica led WUT for most of its history, so WUT without NPO is a significantly different animal than WUT with NPO. At this point, it's the same bloc in name only. - CirrusOfMalla 19:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC) : Furthermore, though their leaving was not part of this specific event, I do think NpO and GGA's resignations from WUT were a result of the same larger conflict with GOONS over leadership. If true, then NPO, NpO, GGA and MCXA (assumption) will all have left over this one issue. - CirrusOfMalla 19:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC) ::\m/ was the first major ally that MCXA had. Don't assume much yet. :::NPO, MCXA, TOP and MDC are all out. The only alliances left in WUT are UJP alliances. It's not speculation anymore, but fact. This war *is* "the end of a unified Initiative". -CirrusOfMalla 13:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC) :::: That's understandable, I just felt that saying the WUT was defunct before everyone officially pulled out was biased against the alliances who were still signatories. Now that there is no one left the facts are now clear, as you've said. JTBeowulf 16:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC) What really started the war The buildup to this was started by Modgate as it was the reason UJP was formed so it should be mentioned in Abstract? : The abstract is very general. It's suppose to be a one-paragraph description of the entire conflict. Modgate belongs in the "preceeding events" section. -CirrusOfMalla 15:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC) BoTS status before the war Despite widespread reporting that BoTS was a protectorate of NpO, it in fact was an MDP partner. Source. --Haflinger 21:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Orange Unity Treaty, CDT and Trident Since OUT alliances are taking part individually rather than as a bloc and on both sides of the conflict, they should not be listed under a unique subheading in the combatants list. - CirrusOfMalla 04:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC) :I agree -Wouser 13:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC) ::CDT and Trident too, but every time I edit them out someone puts them back in. I give up on that one until this constant stream of new editors calms down a bit and we have a manageable number of people involved w/ edits. - CirrusOfMalla 14:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Rationale for adding Federation DoW The Federation DoWed an alliance who allegedly attacked another alliance which was at war with an ally of GOONS. What a mess. Anyway, my original reasons. Haflinger 22:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Declarations order Please folks, if you're going to add in declarations, try to add them in in URL order. There are so many declarations, it's tough enough to go through them all and avoid duplicates any other way. By URL order, I mean add forum thread #2005 just ahead of #2006. It's right there at the end of the URL. Doing this not only means we avoid duplicate listings of the same DoW, it also helps prevent bogus links (the Klingon Empire DoW pointed to a link showing Curland DoWing), and it keeps the DoWs in chronological order, as the URL numbers are incremented by the CN forum server. --Haflinger 02:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC) NPO's involvement in the war NPO declared on GOLD for arranging aid to FAN. Shouldn't that be another front in the continuing FAN-WUT War rather than a new on in this war? Seems to me that NPO is still not involved in this war. - CirrusOfMalla 18:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC) :True it is a off side war and not really involved into the great war. So putting it next to GATO seems fair I think --Wouser 18:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC) :I just see your note and it's quite big. I suggest you will put it next to the gato war? --Wouser 18:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC) :: Yeah, I added the note, as that seems to me the best way of handling it. I've missed the GATO war, though. Not sure what the details are for that... - CirrusOfMalla 18:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC) :::I don't mean you add it to the GATO war but to the Related Wars part ;) so new a new heading NPO and then the detials --Wouser 18:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC) :::: Didn't see that section. Good idea. Will do. Will also move that section above the massive declarations section. - CirrusOfMalla 18:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Kim Jong Hendo 18:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Yeah, add some sort of summary of NPO's involvement and remove NPO from the alliances on the ~ side, since they're not actually involved (and GOLD aren't on UJP's side either). : GOLD declared on CIS. They should be listed. I'd prefer to remove NPO from the infobox totally, but I suspect if we do that they will just be added back in by the next person to see the page who hasn't read this discussion. So I'm hoping by putting an asterik next to them and explaning the situation, that will be enough. -CirrusOfMalla 19:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC) ::Maybe just add a new section to the infobox? With related wars or something?--Wouser 19:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC) ::: I honestly don't think NPO should be listed here. While the wars are are occuring at the same time, they should not be connected. -Chaosman Labeling the NPO's involvement as a "related" or "side war" is incorrect. GOLD is on the UJP side. They declared on CIS. The official NPO position is that we are, indeed, involved in this war. From our declaration of war: "The New Pacific Order hereby declares its involvement in the current global conflict and declares war on the Global Organization for Liberty and Defense." Please add us to the list of ~ alliances. Bakunin's Dream 22:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Don't remove surrendering alliances from the infobox! This article is *history* of the war, not a current events news service. Any alliance that is involved for even 1 minute should remain forever listed with their flag in the infobox. -CirrusOfMalla 19:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC) World War I ----